Decision tree learning with random forest models using agricultural and ecological field data incorporating multi-factor studies and covariate structure
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, the decision learning methods of regression tree and random forest analysis are investigated as complements to standard statistical methods such as analysis of variance and grouped regression. For this purpose, three diverse data sets were used. The first set is large and multidimensional and describes nitrous oxide emissions from sites across different geo-positions in the UK receiving various fertilisation treatments. The second set is based on Gliricidia tree provenances and has a small number of samples and an imbalanced distribution of factor classes. Random forest modelling was found to be a very viable option in the case of the first data set but failed in the case of second. The third data set, based on count observations recording osprey egg incubation times, lends itself to tree and forest modelling. These decision learning methods therefore appear well suited to handling the diverse, multi-dimensional and complex data sets that often arise in carrying out agricultural and ecological field experiments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it